Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Laquince Hogan, convicted of drug-related offenses, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that there was no “reasonable probability” that the contents of the Crown Royal bag at issue would have been suppressed had trial counsel filed a motion to suppress because the inevitable-discovery exception would have rendered the bag’s contents admissible. In this case, Hogan suffered no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington and Hogan's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hogan v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff served on the Missouri grand jury that considered whether probable cause existed to indict Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Missouri, police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown in August 2014. Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes restricting grand jurors from disclosing information were unconstitutional as applied to her. She claimed that the state’s grand-jury secrecy laws violate her First Amendment right to free speech. On appeal, plaintiff claimed that the district court erred by dismissing her First Amendment claim under Burford v. Sun Oil Co. The court concluded that the district court properly abstained from the immediate exercise of federal jurisdiction because answers to state-law issues by the Missouri courts could alter or avoid altogether the need for a decision on Doe’s First Amendment claim. Rather than dismissing the case, the court concluded that the district court instead should have retained jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings while the parties litigate the state-law questions in the Missouri state courts. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. The court noted that, when the state-law issues have been resolved, if the First Amendment claim has not become moot, plaintiff may return to federal district court and pursue it. View "Grand Juror Doe v. McCulloch" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) pursuant to Johnson v. United States. Petitioner challenges a sentence that was imposed in 2008 after the district court applied the career-offender sentencing guideline, USSG 4B1.1, in calculating his advisory sentencing range. Petitioner argues that the residual clause of USSG 4B1.2(a)(2), likewise, is unconstitutionally vague and the constitutional rule that he proposes should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court denied the motion, concluding that petitioner's motion urges the creation of a second new rule that would apply Johnson and the constitutional vagueness doctrine to a provision of the advisory sentencing guidelines. The court concluded that the successive motion should not be certified “to contain” a new rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court as required by section 2255(h)(2). View "Donnell v. United States" on Justia Law

The Authority is in development of a diversion project on the Red River with the Corps. In this appeal, the Authority alleged that the district court made numerous errors in granting a preliminary injunction to JPA, prohibiting the Authority's continued construction of a ring levee in communities in North Dakota (OHB ring levee). The court concluded that the district court’s finding of fact that the OHB project is a part of the larger diversion project is not clearly erroneous and broadly supports the district court’s decision to grant the injunction; the district court found adequate procedural harm and harm to the JPA’s specific environmental interests sufficient to support a preliminary injunction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms favored an injunction. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the dormant Commerce Clause does not preclude JPA’s Minnesota Environmental Procedure Act (MEPA), Minn. R. 4410.3100, claim. Finally, the court concluded that it was permissible for the district court to waive the bond requirement based on its evaluation of public interest in this specific case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers v. Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when attempting to arrest plaintiff for an alleged parole violation. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of defendants. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of plaintiff's convictions for impersonating a peace officer and attempted first degree murder where the conviction for impersonating a peace officer was a crime involving deception which had probative value outweighing any prejudice and where plaintiff failed to show that the use of the conviction for attempted first degree murder for impeachment purposes substantially influenced the jury's verdict. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law where the court could not say that no reasonable juror could have concluded that an officer's third application of a taser was an objectively reasonable approach to ensuring that plaintiff was incapacitated and unable to harm him or the other officers. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Procknow v. Curry" on Justia Law

AMSE appealed the Commission's final order denying AMSE's application for a limited volume exemption from registration as a national securities exchange under section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et. seq., and the district court’s dismissal of AMSE’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the Commission’s determination that it did not have discretion to grant a low-volume exemption to AMSE because it proposed to act as a self-regulatory organization (SRO) was reasonable; the Commission reasonably concluded that an exempt exchange could not be an SRO and that permitting an exchange to wield the broad powers of an SRO when the Commission is not statutorily required to exercise oversight would contradict the careful balance prescribed by Congress to protect the public interest and investors; and, therefore, the Commission's conclusion is well-reasoned and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court also concluded that AMSE has failed to establish circumstances permitting for district court review. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Automated Matching Sys. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various municipalities and their employees under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-25, after municipal and state personnel had accessed plaintiff’s personal information approximately sixty times between 2003 and 2012. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims without prejudice but allowed her to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff instead requested that the district court enter final judgment dismissing her case with prejudice. Then plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision without receiving the judgment she requested. The court concluded that, because plaintiff did not obtain a final judgment following the district court’s dismissal of her complaint with leave to amend, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Sapp v. City of Brooklyn Park" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant alleged that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his backpack without a warrant. The court concluded that, based on the evidence presented, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant abandoned his backpack when he left it in a vehicle in order to flee from law enforcement officers, and relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Nowak" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her minor sons, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of the denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, petitioners failed to establish past persecution because they have not shown that a gang persecuted them on the basis of their membership in their family. Nor have petitioners shown a well founded fear of future persecution on the basis of their family membership. Therefore, the court concluded that the BIA's determination that petitioners are not eligible for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. Since petitioners are not eligible for asylum, they necessarily cannot meet the more rigorous standard of proof for withholding of removal. Finally, the court concluded that petitioners failed to present a case of willful non-intervention by law enforcement sufficient to meet the requirements under the CAT. The court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Milian v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning in November 2011 due to severe hearing loss, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and severe diarrhea caused by medication side effects. The court reversed and remanded, finding that the ALJ did not mention, much less resolve, the seemingly inconsistent results obtained from plaintiff's two hearing tests. Nor did the ALJ adequately explain why he apparently elected to place greater weight on the results from the April 2012 hearing test rather than the results from the February 2012 hearing test. Neither test was deemed to be altogether reliable. This factor, coupled with the ALJ’s failure to accurately describe the medical evidence in the record and his failure to identify or analyze the relevant Listing, lead the court to determine that the ALJ's finding was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Brown v. Colvin" on Justia Law